<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (3) TMI 348 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257412</link>
    <description>Outdoor catering services provided in a factory can qualify as an input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 where the canteen facility has an integral nexus with manufacturing business operations. The analysis treats such catering as a business necessity in the factory context and applies precedents supporting wider input service coverage. The 2011 amendment excluding certain employee-related services did not govern the dispute period because it was stated to take effect from 01.04.2011. Cenvat credit was therefore allowable on outdoor catering for the relevant period, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2016 11:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=378375" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 348 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257412</link>
      <description>Outdoor catering services provided in a factory can qualify as an input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 where the canteen facility has an integral nexus with manufacturing business operations. The analysis treats such catering as a business necessity in the factory context and applies precedents supporting wider input service coverage. The 2011 amendment excluding certain employee-related services did not govern the dispute period because it was stated to take effect from 01.04.2011. Cenvat credit was therefore allowable on outdoor catering for the relevant period, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257412</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>